[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-staff_acct] Consensus Call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.

[Izumi Okutani]

Thanks Avri.

I have a question on Service Level Guidelines/Agreement described in 
Staff Accountability Report as below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit

> ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
> Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service. 


I would like to double check the scope of this service level guidelines 
for "all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the 
service level target for each service".

Would "contracted parties" here only include contracted parties of 
domain name services provided by ICANN?


Izumi


On 2017/09/19 21:08, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being
> submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting.  This will be the
> group's second attempt to do so.  We have, since the first failed
> reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have
> made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
> 
> The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but
> one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last
> meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider
> conversation.
> 
> Currently recommendation 4a reads:
> 
>      ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
> 
>        a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the
>          Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that
>          clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted
>          parties and the service level target for each service.
> 
> 
> The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the
> full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had
> been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the
> difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was
> changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup,
> though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
> 
> During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait
> until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties
> House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been
> made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and
> that it would be better to develop SLAs.
> 
> Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team
> member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the
> subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the
> issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus
> call supported this recommendation.
> 
> The document can be found in
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
> (pdf attached)
> 
> 
> thank you
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>